High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42118 Court No. - 66 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 9464 of 2025 Applicant :- Radheyshayam Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Ranjeet Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Sri Vinjay Kumar, Advocate filed his power on behalf of the informant which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Ranjeet Singh, learned counsel for the applicant; Sri Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Jhamman Ram, learned AGA for the State-respondent. 3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 168 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B IPC, Police Station Mau, District Chitrakoot, during pendency of the trial in the court below. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that however, applicant was named in the FIR alongwith others but during investigation, his involvement was found false and no charge sheet was filed against him and charge sheet was filed only against other accused persons but during trial, on the basis of statement of PW-1 Sanjay Gupta i.e. informant of the case, he has been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. 5. He further submitted that from the statement of the informant recorded during trial, it reflects that during trial, he claimed himself to be an eye witness but from the FIR it reflects he was not the eye witness. 6. He further submitted that even from the statement of the informant recorded by the trial court which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application, it reflects that only general role has been assigned to all the accused. 7. He further submitted that other accused persons were named in the FIR alongwith the applicant and against whom charge sheet was filed have already been released on bail by this Court and their bail orders have been annexed alongwith the instant bail application and as far as allegations are concerned, case of applicant is at par with them. 8. He further submitted that however apart from the present case applicant is having criminal history of 12 other cases but in three cases final report has been submitted and in other three cases applicant has already been acquitted. He further submitted that out of remaining cases, in one case proceeding pending against the applicant has been stayed by this Court and in three cases, applicant is on bail. He further submitted that however, in one case relates to offence under section 308 IPC, applicant was convicted for three years but his appeal before this Court is pending and he is on bail. 9. He further submitted that in the present matter, applicant is in jail since 1.2.2025. 10. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that applicant is hardened criminal and apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 12 other cases but they could not dispute the other arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant including the fact that applicant has been summoned in the present matter with the aid of section 319 Cr.P.C. and number of similarly placed co-accused have already been released on bail, by this Court. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 12. From the perusal of the record, it reflects that applicant was named in the FIR alongwith six others but during investigation, his involvement was found false and therefore, no charge sheet was filed against him and charge sheet was filed against other accused persons but it reflects that during trial, he has been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. on the basis of statement of informant. 13. Further, from the statement of the informant Sanjay Gupta recorded before the trial court which has been annexed alongwith the instant bail application it reflects that before the trial court he claimed himself an eye witness but from the FIR, it appears, he was not an eye witness. 14. Further, witness Sanjay Gupat attributed only general role to all the accused including applicant and other accused have already been released on bail. 15. Further, however, apart from the present case, applicant is having criminal history of 12 other cases but his criminal history has been duly explained in the instant bail application and it reflects out of 12 cases in three cases, applicant has been acquitted and in another three cases, final report has been submitted and in other cases, he is on bail. However, it reflects in one case under section 308 IPC, he has been convicted for three years but his appeal before this Court is pending and he is on bail by the order passed by this Court. 16. Further, law is settled that if otherwise case of bail is made out then merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, ordinarily bail application of an accused should not be withheld. 17. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail. 18. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed. 19. Let the applicant-Radheyshayam Mishra, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity. 20. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant. 21. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 21.3.2025 Ankita Digitally signed by :- ANKITA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad